問題答案關係策略融入閱讀教學對國小六年級學生閱讀理解與論證能力之影響：以社會性科學議題為例

The Effect of Question-Answer-Relationship Strategy on the Argumentation and Reading Comprehension Abilities of the Sixth Graders Through Infusing Socioscientific Issue Texts

夏玉林(Yu-Lin Xia) ； 靳知勤(Chi-Chin Chin)

《科學教育學刊》 29卷3期 (2021/09) Pp. 191-217

https://doi.org/10.6173/CJSE.202109_29(3).0001

摘要

本研究探討國小六年級學生閱讀社會性科學議題文本中，融入問題答案關係策略，對其閱讀理解與論證能力的影響。研究採準實驗研究設計，實驗組（n = 24）與對照組（n = 26）各一班，其中實驗組接受以問題答案關係策略之社會性科學議題閱讀教學，對照組接受社會性科學議題閱讀教學，共計11節課。而教學議題為「動物實驗」與「神豬比賽」；教學介入前、中、後，各接受一次閱讀理解與論證能力施測。研究工具為「閱讀理解測驗」與「論證能力測驗」。第一階段教學的「動物實驗」中，兩組皆為進行「社會性科學議題文本閱讀、思考單、討論」的教學過程；第二階段「神豬比賽」議題的教學則如前階段相同的歷程，惟實驗組在討論中融入問題答案關係策略，對照組則否。研究結果顯示：一、實驗組的閱讀理解及論證能力，均獲致顯著成長。二、實驗組與對照組的閱讀理解及論證能力中測成績間無差異。三、後測時，實驗組的閱讀理解及論證能力均顯著高於對照組。

關鍵字

社會性科學議題 ； 問題答案關係策略 ； 論證能力 ； 閱讀理解能力 ； 閱讀教學

並列摘要

This quasi-experimental investigation explored the effects of an instructional intervention using a question-answer-relationship strategy with two Socioscientific Issue (SSI) on sixth grade students' argumentation ability (AA) and reading comprehension ability (RCA). One experimental group (n = 24) and one control group (n = 26) participated in 11 hours of instruction. The SSI teaching topics were ＂animal experiment＂ and the Taiwan Hakka community traditional ＂holy pig competition＂ ritual. Two research instruments used with each group before, during, and after the instructional intervention were a RCA test and an AA test. When teaching the ＂animal experiment＂ SSI, the teacher instructed both groups to (1) read a SSI-text, (2) complete a ＂thinking sheet,＂ and then (3) discuss the SSI. When teaching the ＂holy pig competition＂ to both groups, the teacher used the same instructional process. However, the teacher incorporated the question-answer-relationship strategy into the students' discussion of the SSI in the experimental group, but did not incorporate this strategy into the students' discussion of the SSI in the control group. Results showed (1) both AA and RCA of the experimental group significantly increased; (2) no significant differences were found in the AA and RCA mid-tests in the two groups; and (3) the experimental group had significantly higher scores in AA and RCA post-tests than the control group.

並列關鍵字

Socioscientific Issue ； Question-Answer-Relationship Strategy ； Argumentation Ability ； Reading Comprehension Ability ； Reading Instruction

參考文獻

李如偉、蘇明洲、黃湃翔、呂仲誠、高慧蓮(2012)。以科學讀寫模式提升國小學童論證能力之研究。科學教育學刊，20(6)，483-515。doi:10.6173/CJSE.2012.2006.01[Lee, J.-W., Su, M.-C., Huang, P.-H., Liu, C.-C., & Kao, H.-L. (2012). A study of adopting the scientific reading and writing model to promote elementary pupils’ argumentation ability. Chinese Journal of Science Education, 20(6), 483-514. doi:10.6173/CJSE.2012.2006.01]

林振欽、陳竹上(2012)。論證教學模式之建構及其運用於環境倫理相關研究之分析：以博碩士論文為例。應用倫理教學與研究學刊，7(1)，115-126。doi:10.6794/JAETR.201201.0115[Lin, J.-C., & Chen, J.-S. (2012). A study on arguing teaching models construction and application in environmental ethics: Example from dissertations. Journal of Applied Ethics Teaching and Research, 7(1), 115-126. doi:10.6794/JAETR.201201.0115]

林樹聲(2012)。在科學課堂中應用爭議性議題教學促進國小六年級學生道德思考。科學教育學刊，20(5)，435-459。doi:10.6173/CJSE.2012.2005.03[Lin, S.-S. (2012). Fostering the sixth grade students’ moral thinking through the instruction of controversial issues in science classroom. Chinese Journal of Science Education, 20(5), 435-459. doi:10.6173/CJSE.2012.2005.03]

林樹聲、黃柏鴻(2009)。國小六年級學生在社會性科學議題教學中之論證能力研究—不同學業成就學生間之比較。科學教育學刊，17(2)，111-133。doi:10.6173/CJSE.2009.1702.02[Lin, S.-S., & Huang, P.-H. (2009). Students’ constructing argumentation about a socioscien-tific issue—The differences between sixth graders with different levels of academic achievement. Chinese Journal of Science Education, 17(2), 111-133. doi:10.6173/CJSE.2009.1702.02]

靳知勤、吳靜宜(2017)。國小學童在社會性科學議題教學中的非形式推理改變：以不同條件下之能源決策為例。科學教育學刊，25(1)，21-46。doi:10.6173/CJSE.2017.2501.02[Chin, C.-C., & Wu, C.-Y. (2017). Elementary students’ change in informal reasoning through the SSI instruction: Their decisions on energy choice under the different conditions. Chinese Journal of Science Education, 25(1), 21-46. doi:10.6173/CJSE.2017.2501.02]